February Midterm Presidential Poll Results

now Rach can be a [censored] at times
I don't care what else you guys wanna say under anonymity, this is not okay. Ever.
 
I think this is one of the most negative polling comment sections that we've seen in quite a while. Honestly, Calvin and the rest of the polling industry _really_ needs to limit comments to just a few broadstrokes questions. Making a comment on a poll is just throwing a grenade over the wall; if you actually have concerns you should be voicing them in public (as some do, but definitely not all).

I think Aex's administration has been turbulent, but he's also had a lot of bad luck. When faced with things that are in his control, he's tended to make the right call after a delayed period (Pichto's termination being a good example). I also think he's being graded on an unfair negative curve, because many newer members really only know of a President Writinglegend. WL got the opportunity to serve as President five times now, and I think with that sort of experience it's difficult to match.

Assuming the back end of the term turns around, I think this term will be remembered as good, not great.
 
HEM said:
I think this is one of the most negative polling comment sections that we've seen in quite a while. Honestly, Calvin and the rest of the polling industry _really_ needs to limit comments to just a few broadstrokes questions. Making a comment on a poll is just throwing a grenade over the wall; if you actually have concerns you should be voicing them in public (as some do, but definitely not all).

I think Aex's administration has been turbulent, but he's also had a lot of bad luck. When faced with things that are in his control, he's tended to make the right call after a delayed period (Pichto's termination being a good example). I also think he's being graded on an unfair negative curve, because many newer members really only know of a President Writinglegend. WL got the opportunity to serve as President five times now, and I think with that sort of experience it's difficult to match.

Assuming the back end of the term turns around, I think this term will be remembered as good, not great.
Well, the thing is, I don't ever want to be seen as censoring the data, because that introduces an element of bias. Which comments do you leave? Which ones do you remove? Comments on the Ministers are useful to know where we're at in the eyes of the public, and I personally like it. The problems are limited to the people flinging mud from behind the anonymity of the poll.
 
Kaboom said:
HEM said:
I think this is one of the most negative polling comment sections that we've seen in quite a while. Honestly, Calvin and the rest of the polling industry _really_ needs to limit comments to just a few broadstrokes questions. Making a comment on a poll is just throwing a grenade over the wall; if you actually have concerns you should be voicing them in public (as some do, but definitely not all).

I think Aex's administration has been turbulent, but he's also had a lot of bad luck. When faced with things that are in his control, he's tended to make the right call after a delayed period (Pichto's termination being a good example). I also think he's being graded on an unfair negative curve, because many newer members really only know of a President Writinglegend. WL got the opportunity to serve as President five times now, and I think with that sort of experience it's difficult to match.

Assuming the back end of the term turns around, I think this term will be remembered as good, not great.
Well, the thing is, I don't ever want to be seen as censoring the data, because that introduces an element of bias. Which comments do you leave? Which ones do you remove? Comments on the Ministers are useful to know where we're at in the eyes of the public, and I personally like it. The problems are limited to the people flinging mud from behind the anonymity of the poll.
I mean you don't include the comment sections. Like, don't have them at all. Or maybe have one at the end.
 
I think Comments are a good thing to have, and one comment section risks leaving too much lost in the shuffle. Uses of words like 'bitch' are uncalled for, and unacceptable, but it's also one of the risks we have if we want anonymity in response (which has its own value) and we want comments. We should focus on social shunning of such conduct, not reducing feedback options.
 
Probably one of the most annoying ministers I've seen in my time here. Useless pings, always focusing on recruitment instead of integration, completely obtuse and throws a fluster fit when there is criticism, poor management skills, way too egotistical, and now he's running for CA? LMAO. He's one of the shitiest leaders in Europeia at the moment. I don't understand why people think he is so great. Recruitment numbers aren't going to prove how good he is.

I have no problem with people expressing their opinions, but this comment is unacceptable. Constructive criticism is acceptable, but this is not at all constructive. I don't know what goes through someone's mind to think that calling someone a 'bitch' or calling them the 'shittiest leader in Europeia,' but it is simply wrong. Whoever wrote this, I know you don't give a shit about what other people feel, but try to actually act like a human being with a little fucking compassion. I'm tired of people feeling like they're entitled to anything. People who feel like they somehow have the right to say these things for some godforsaken reason. Well it needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. Comments like that shouldn't be tolerated.
 
Calvin has a duty to Europeia and its development to not display some of these rather bad statements. I dont care about bias. You damn well be biased if retains people in the region.
 
I think simply removing comments from polls would be the best option. We would all be better off if people would simply voice their opinions publicly. If you going to be such a little shit to say some of these things anonymously but not publically, rgw anonymous option should be removed.
 
GraVandius said:
I think simply removing comments from polls would be the best option. We would all be better off if people would simply voice their opinions publicly. If you going to be such a little shit to say some of these things anonymously but not publically, rgw anonymous option should be removed.
Conversely I know that there is criticism of some Ministers that did not happen because of fear of retribution. Being seen as a critic can diminish your standing and access. It rendered me unable to participate in a Radio piece that would go on the showreel for example. There absolutely is room for anonymous criticism. However it needs to be responsible and disciplined, throwing out propane and offensive language is bad for our culture and also threatens to silence all anonymous critique.
 
For the record, I support the anonymity of the comments and comments in general, but a lot of these are unacceptable. That doesn't mean get rid of comments entirely, but there should be a way of controlling what comments are actually allowed. Not silencing, but removing ones that have vulgar language. The same language that would get someone removed from NS.
 
JayDee said:
For the record, I support the anonymity of the comments and comments in general, but a lot of these are unacceptable. That doesn't mean get rid of comments entirely, but there should be a way of controlling what comments are actually allowed. Not silencing, but removing ones that have vulgar language. The same language that would get someone removed from NS.
I don't see many if more than two comments with vulgar language but I could be wrong because I'm on mobile. Explicit language I agree could be censored but the sentiment of calling someone a [s--- leader] is not something pulled out of thin air but is a repeated critique of the Minister's focus on numbers that are a waste of time over other matters. I agree that the language is not necessary though.
 
The thing is, apart from removing clear vulgarity, we all have different ideas what sort of comments should be unpublished, because everyone has different levels of tolerance for critique. There are people who just find the idea of criticism and anything even remotely negative to be bad just in of itself.
 
When I used to do this, I usually only included comments that were interesting or notable for some reason.
 
Sopo said:
When I used to do this, I usually only included comments that were interesting or notable for some reason.
Too easy. Asking editors to exhibit prudent judgement is a bridge too far! We need 4 Discord channels and a ministry with a cool acronym to sort this out!
 
I think this can be mitigated by providing more direction. Polls should state up front that comments should be about the performance of the Ministry, not attacks on individuals. The poll runner should then filter out comments that don't comply with this direction. There will always be hard calls on the border, and we won't all make the same call in some cases, but providing notice up front will encourage people to be constructive to make sure their comments aren't filtered and provides justification for removing the worst instances.
 
When I first read these results, I didn't go through the comments sections too thoroughly, so I'm glad to see Kuramia called out the comment made about Rach. It's not pretty to look at but letting it slip by unnoticed risks creating an environment where we could see more of such unacceptable language being posted publicly. I also think that her willingness to come to Rach's defense after she has been so critical of the Ministry this term speaks volumes about her character and moral integrity. Quite frankly, I'm shocked that Calvin would include this in the published results at all without at least censoring the vulgarity, barring omitting the comment altogether.
 
Sorry I was unable to respond to this discussion earlier. I'll be honest, the comment in question slipped past me, I was very tired when I was compiling everything, so my apologies. Had I noticed it, I would have removed the comment. It would still be accessible in the raw data, of course, if anyone wanted to dig deeper, because I don't want to tamper with that. In general, I like to include as many comments as I can because I feel they add context to the scores given. There's no point in removing this comment now, as it has garnered so much attention, but I'll be more mindful in the future.
 
Calvin Coolidge said:
Sorry I was unable to respond to this discussion earlier. I'll be honest, the comment in question slipped past me, I was very tired when I was compiling everything, so my apologies. Had I noticed it, I would have removed the comment. It would still be accessible in the raw data, of course, if anyone wanted to dig deeper, because I don't want to tamper with that. In general, I like to include as many comments as I can because I feel they add context to the scores given. There's no point in removing this comment now, as it has garnered so much attention, but I'll be more mindful in the future.
Thank you, Calvin! Given what Rach just posted in her own paper, I think we should show some respect to people in general!

I am not going to be getting over the contents of that comment any time soon....
 
Sopo said:
When I used to do this, I usually only included comments that were interesting or notable for some reason.
I think that's a metric that's much easier to apply than simply filtering out the 'too negative' ones, and I think Mal also presents another workable idea.
 
Back
Top